Exclusive possession of a tenanted property by a third party, in the absence of a valid tenancy agreement, establishes subletting. Eviction for material impairment requires proof of structural changes that demonstrably diminish the building's value or utility, and cannot be based on misread evidence or imputed admissions.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

CHALLENGE IN THE REVISION PETITION:

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment passed by the Rent Controller dated 15.01.2009 vide which the petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1973') for the ejectment of the petitioner and Madan Lal (since deceased represented by LR's) was allowed. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 11.02.2010 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the eviction petition and as per the case of present respondents No.1 and 2 was a sub-tenant, was dismissed qua the challenge to the eviction order. The 1^st Appellate Court had passed the eviction order on the ground of sub-letting and also on the ground of material impairment.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

2. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for the ejectment of Madan Lal and Bhushan Lal from Shop No.5266 situated in Pansari Bazar, Ambala Cantt, on several grounds. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 15.01.2009 allowed the said rent petition and directed the said Madan Lal and Bhushan Lal to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the landlords within a period of three months from the date of the passing of the judgment. The appeal filed by the present petitioner-Bhushan Lal was decided on 11.02.2010 and in the said judgment, the petitioner was held entitled to recovery of excess rent amount deposited by him. However, the eviction on the ground of subletting and material impairment was upheld and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of one month from the date of the passing of the said judgment. The petitioner-Bhushan Lal challenged the said judgments of the Rent Controller and of the Appellate Authority by filing the present Civil Revision No.1755 of 2010. The said Civil Revision No.1755 of 2010 was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2012 along with the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No.3389 of 2011. An application for recalling of the said order was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2014. Against the said orders, respondents No.1 and 2 filed Civil Appeal Nos.3840-43 of 2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of the said appeals vide judgment dated 08.03.2017. Thereafter respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application for recall of the part of the judgment dated 08.03.2017 which pertained to the premises in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.03.2018, recalled the judgment dated 08.03.2017 and remanded the matter to the High Court for de novo consideration of the case of the parties pertaining to the premises in question. It is in pursuance of the said order that the matter has come up before this Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has submitted that in the present case, although several grounds for